[NYCFarmboy]

XXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JAN 14, 2003 19:39:09 ET XXXXX

GORE TO DECRY 'GLOBAL WARMING' ON NEW YORK CITY'S COLDEST DAY IN DECADE

In what political watchers are calling possibly the biggest gaffe in years, former Vice President Al Gore is set to give a speech tomorrow on the perils of global warming -- on what is expected to be the coldest day in New England in nearly half a century!

MORE

Against the advice of senior advisers, Gore is planning to appear at the historic Beacon Theatre in Manhattan on Thursday to issue an indictment of the Bush administration's "inaction on global warming."

Gore will make the warming case on a day forecasters are predicting the coldest temps in Boston since 1957, with wind chills in parts of New England plunging to 100 degrees below zero!

MORE

Even though forecasters predict Thursday night will bring the coldest temperature reading in New York City in more than 10 years [1 degree above zero], sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT that Gore is determined to deliver the speech -- hoping to make the case how "Global warming" is actually the cause of the record cold snap!

MORE

"The extreme conditions are actually the end result of the planet warming," Gore has told advisers, sources say, in explaining his motivations. "The Bush policies are leading to weather extremes."

Sources would not say whether the speech is to be given outdoors.

Developing...

[effgee]

and the point the "Drudge Report" (you?) is trying to make is ... ?

[xv_ronin_vx]

He's right and wrong at the same time. Global warming in fact will lower temperatures in the long run, and not the other way around like you would expect. He's off his rocker if he wants to blame George Bush, because, for one thing, most people think it should be warmer with global warming, and secondly, he'll look nothing like the genius we know he is. After all, he did invent the internet and all.

Here are a few links to look over in regard to Global Warming for everyone to get a heads-up.

1. http://www.centralmaine.com/news/local/224317.shtml

2. http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61501,00.html

3. http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming.asp

4. http://www.in-sourced.com/article/ar...int/869/-1/13/

I am a believer in finding out the truth for yourself, and not taking the word of just one or even 4 sources given by a perfect stranger over the internet. If you are serious about insuring we make the right decisions about the future of mankind and the planet, go out there and find the answers.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by effgee:
and the point the "Drudge Report" (you?) is trying to make is ... ?

It is 14 degrees F out..I would welcome some global warming.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by xv_ronin_vx:
He's right and wrong at the same time. Global warming in fact will lower temperatures in the long run, and not the other way around like you would expect. He's off his rocker if he wants to blame George Bush, because, for one thing, most people think it should be warmer with global warming, and secondly, he'll look nothing like the genius we know he is. After all, he did invent the internet and all.

Here are a few links to look over in regard to Global Warming for everyone to get a heads-up.

1. http://www.centralmaine.com/news/local/224317.shtml

2. http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61501,00.html

3. http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming.asp

4. http://www.in-sourced.com/article/ar...int/869/-1/13/

I am a believer in finding out the truth for yourself, and not taking the word of just one or even 4 sources given by a perfect stranger over the internet. If you are serious about insuring we make the right decisions about the future of mankind and the planet, go out there and find the answers.

I'm just old enough to remember the upcoming doom and gloom of the coming ice age in the late 1970's.

I think it is all a load of bull sh!!t. First we were going to freeze to death. Then we were going to melt. Now Gore is going to warn us of melting while we are freezing.

[effgee]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
I think it is all a load of bull sh!!t.

You're right, of course - as long as you think it's a load of bull and the POTUS agrees with you - there's nothing to worry about.



The term "gullible" ring a bell?

[nate_02]

Originally posted by effgee:
and the point the "Drudge Report" (you?) is trying to make is ... ?

That Gore and the Global Warming THEORY is a bunch of crap!

[voyageur]

Global warming is not a theory. It is a fact. The average temperature of the earth has risen in the last 100 years.

We in the US (except for Alaskans) are a bit isolated from it, as it is more pronounced at the higher latitudes, like Europe. In Alaska, the permafrost is thawing, causing roads to buckle. Europe had the hottest summer on record last year. Glaciers in the Alps are receding at a rapid rate.

What is still theory is what is causing the warming, human activity or something else.

[kindbud]

Originally posted by effgee:
You're right, of course - as long as you think it's a load of bull and the POTUS agrees with you - there's nothing to worry about.



The term "gullible" ring a bell?

Can you say 'global cooling'?

I thought you could.

"Gullible" is reserved for those that think global warming has any more merit than global cooling did.

youngsters...

[maxelson]

Originally posted by nate_02:
That Gore and the Global Warming THEORY is a bunch of crap!

Excellent. Another politically motivated scientist.

From what I recall: the BEST MINDS in science today still declare "jury out". THose who make global climate their life's work still declare "jury out". There are as many excellent minds at work on this on both sides.
You are politically motivated. They are not.


My point: and you'd rather make the gamble? Problem is- with your willing ness to gamble, and the politician's willingness to gamble, you don't give ME a choice. You force me on your little boat ride.

Don't give me any economy bullshit, either. THere is a MASS business- worldwide environmental business just WAITING to erupt.


You got some science to add? Add it. Keep your politically motivated rationalizations to yourself.

I can write PAGES backing up what I say. YOu got a buttload of rationalizations pushed along by your party. In fact, go do a forum search and pull up the LAST conversation we had on this. GO read what is suggested (on both sides of the argument) andf then come back with something constructive. You know. Like Spliffy's response.

[Troll]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Global warming is not a theory. It is a fact. The average temperature of the earth has risen in the last 100 years.

We in the US (except for Alaskans) are a bit isolated from it, as it is more pronounced at the higher latitudes, like Europe. In Alaska, the permafrost is thawing, causing roads to buckle. Europe had the hottest summer on record last year. Glaciers in the Alps are receding at a rapid rate.

What is still theory is what is causing the warming, human activity or something else.

I can't believe that some people still have their heads in the sand on this!

[BlackGriffen]

Re: The title of the thread: a single day, or even a single year does not a climate make. Weather is what the conditions are right now. Climate is averaged over several years (preferably 11, since that is the approximate time for the sun to complete one sun spot cycle). Global warming is a statement about climate, not weather.

Please, don't conflate the two, even for rhetorical purposes.

BlackGriffen

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by maxelson:
... In fact, go do a forum search and pull up the LAST conversation we had on this...

You mean the one where Bjorn Lomborg's name was mentioned?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Re: The title of the thread: a single day, or even a single year does not a climate make. Weather is what the conditions are right now. Climate is averaged over several years (preferably 11, since that is the approximate time for the sun to complete one sun spot cycle). Global warming is a statement about climate, not weather.

Please, don't conflate the two, even for rhetorical purposes.

BlackGriffen

I don't think he's trying to deliberately conflate them. I think he's just trying to point out the irony that Gore would speak of global warming during a day of record low temperatures.

It is ironic, after all.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Global warming is not a theory. It is a fact...

Well, yes. And it's also a fact that global temperatures have changed many times in the past absent any buildup of greenhouse gases. In fact the point of inflection where temperatures first started to rise 100 years ago doesn't correspond to a sudden increase of these gases.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I don't think he's trying to deliberately conflate them. I think he's just trying to point out the irony that Gore would speak of global warming during a day of record low temperatures.

It is ironic, after all.

That I will admit, is funny on the surface.

Just had to make sure to point out that one does not really have crap to do with the other.

BlackGriffen

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
That I will admit, is funny on the surface.

Just had to make sure to point out that one does not really have crap to do with the other.

BlackGriffen

It'll be interesting to see if Gore tries to blame the cold on global warming. He has made similar claims in the past.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
It'll be interesting to see if Gore tries to blame the cold on global warming. He has made similar claims in the past.

It is actually possible for warmth to trigger a freeze and for cold to trigger heat.

For instance, there's a theory that the melting glaciers near the end of the last ice-age released enough fresh water into the ocean to shut down the northern branch of the gulf stream called "the conveyor" (the one that runs by Europe and Canada). This, in turn, caused rapid cooling in the region, and changed climate for quite a while.

The bad thing is that we don't fully understand what other possible triggers for climate change that there are, and what effect that they'll have.

BlackGriffen

[nate_02]

[kindbud]

global warming: brought to you by the chloroflourocarbon industry.

makers of R12 and other refrigerants that increased a thousand-fold in value.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
You mean the one where Bjorn Lomborg's name was mentioned?

GRAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!! LOMBORGLOMBORGLOMBORG!!!!!
Yep. That would be the one. As we said there, though, there are FAR more credible arguments against than Lomborg's.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by nate_02:

Look, man. All that is being said here is this: got an argument? Make it. Don't use some OBVIOUS political agenda to motivate your lack of faith in a scientific argument. Utilizing the Republican or any other party as your primary source on whether or not Global Warming exists is a HUGE friggin disservice to yourself- not to mention irresponsible and lazy.

[Zimphire]

Gore is a idiot. Saw him on the news last night being a sore loser again.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by nate_02:

Just because it's a complicated subject doesn't mean you should roll your eyes back in your head and pass out.

Try looking at chaos theory some time, and realize that the weather is more complicated than just about any example system the book you read will cook up.

BlackGriffen

[slow moe]

I just find it hard to believe that the Earth's temperatures could have fluctuated any in it's 4 billion year history.

[dtriska]

Originally posted by slow moe:
I just find it hard to believe that the Earth's temperatures could have fluctuated any in it's 4 billion year history.

So, you find it hard to believe that there have been ice ages, too?

[adamk]

Originally posted by slow moe:
I just find it hard to believe that the Earth's temperatures could have fluctuated any in it's 4 billion year history.

glaciers extended down to the midwest of the US several thousand years ago. tropical plants existed in the arctic region (axel heilberg island, specifically) hundred's of million years ago.

temperature can and has changed over time. this fact is used as evidence that a change that is occuring cannot be related to human activities, for it happened before humans existed.

the average global temperature has increased steadily over the last fifty years, corresponding to steadily increasing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. some people see that and make a connection. to others it's completely irrelavent.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by maxelson:
GRAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!! LOMBORGLOMBORGLOMBORG!!!!!
Yep. That would be the one. As we said there, though, there are FAR more credible arguments against than Lomborg's.

Except he was recently vindicated.

[pooka]

Lifted from the slashdot discussion:

Bjorn Lomborg says evironmentalists are stupid.
Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty says Bjorn Lomborg is stupid.
Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation says Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty is stupid.
Cato Institute says Bjorn Lomborg is not stupid.
Scientific American says Bjorn Lomborg is stupid.

okay makes sense now.

Man, I love me some slashdot.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by adamk:
temperature can and has changed over time. this fact is used as evidence that a change that is occuring cannot be related to human activities, for it happened before humans existed.

There were humans around during the last ice age, although I don't think any scientist implicates them in that climate change.

Arguing that climate change can never be caused by human activity because changes have occurred in the absence of humans is pretty shaky. Climate change undoubtedly has had multiple causes over the ages, human activity being a possibility in the most recent change.

[theolein]

That the global climate is changing is something I think most people can agree on. Global temperatures have risen steadily over the past 100 years and this trend is accelerating at the moment. I find it strange that so many deny this so viscously and see it as some kind of environmentailist plot.

What I think many don't realise is that climate is not a simple case of hotter summers and winters. There is a theory, for example, that the fact that the oceans in the North Atlantic are warming up (which they are), means that the lower salt content of the water will mean that water will cease to drop to the bottom and flow back to the equator, thereby bringing an end to the Gulfstream. The general predictions are that, without the Gulfstream, this caused by global warming, there would be a colder period in Northern Europe, as places like Norway etc depend on the Gulfstream for their current climate.

Whatever the case may be, It would be sad to have to simply wait and see what happens because people are so frightened of having to conserve energy. The longer one waits the more difficult it gets to do something about the problem generally.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by theolein:
That the global climate is changing is something I think most people can agree on. Global temperatures have risen steadily over the past 100 years and this trend is accelerating at the moment. I find it strange that so many deny this so viscously and see it as some kind of environmentailist plot.

Much of that can be attributed to the fact that the sun is getting hotter. All the other planets in our solar system are warming as well.

[Meneldil]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Much of that can be attributed to the fact that the sun is getting hotter. All the other planets in our solar system are warming as well.

The amount of energy the sun puts out varies on an eleven year cycle, but we know about that and I imagine we account for those changes. Where did you hear that the other planets are getting warmer? Aging will cause an overall drop in solar temperature, though we have a while until any dramatic change occurs. From what I learned in Astrophysics, everything we know about the fusion process in a star indicates a remarkably constant energy output over long periods.

[adamk]

Originally posted by voyageur:
There were humans around during the last ice age, although I don't think any scientist implicates them in that climate change.

yes that is what i meant. my bad.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Much of that can be attributed to the fact that the sun is getting hotter. All the other planets in our solar system are warming as well.

really? it would seem that a 1°f change would require an extrordinary amount of increase in the temperature of the sun. think about the surface area that the earth presents to the sun. it has to be be some ungodly point zero zero zero ad nauseum percent of the sun's total output. and for such a drastic increase in temperature to be felt in such a small place, the total energy increase would be huge.

well, i got nothing to do today, so maybe i'll pull out the thermo and astro textbooks and try and make sense of it. spacefreak, do you have any helpful links?

[Meneldil]

Hmm, I realized I forgot a couple things while poking around the web.

First is the Maunder Minimum, covered on the page below. The sun was actually putting out more energy then (abnormally low sunspot activity, sunspots are cooler and darker, so more total energy reaching us) but this is suggested as the cause of the 'little ice age' also mentioned on this page.

http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplan...anets/sol.html

Secondly, the Sun's luminosity (the number that matters) - the actual temperature of the outermost opaque layer (5800 Kelvin) produces the luminosity in a way that can be approximated as a black body, but the temperature of other layers such as the corona, which is about a million Kelvin, doesn't really affect us. The thing is, I think a increase in solar temperature would tend to cool us down, which might explain the little ice age and Maunder Minimum interaction. The black body model specifies a curve, the peak of which is the most common wavelength light is emitted at a given temperature. If this shifts down, which would happen if the sun heated up, we would get more shorter wavelength light (purple, UV, and above) and less long wavelength light (red, infrared). It's these longer wavelengths that heat us up - UV is largely blocked by the atmosphere, though we're fixing that too. So if you have in fact heard that the sun is getting hotter, that would indicate to my (admittedly imperfect) understanding that we should be getting less heat. Still, it would take a rather significant shift in temperature, as adamk pointed out, for us to care.

Physics people, point out any flaws in my reasoning please. This is almost all from memory and I'm sadly out of practice. Stupid not bringing books to China.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Meneldil:
Hmm, I realized I forgot a couple things while poking around the web.

First is the Maunder Minimum, covered on the page below. The sun was actually putting out more energy then (abnormally low sunspot activity, sunspots are cooler and darker, so more total energy reaching us) but this is suggested as the cause of the 'little ice age' also mentioned on this page.

http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplan...anets/sol.html

Secondly, the Sun's luminosity (the number that matters) - the actual temperature of the outermost opaque layer (5800 Kelvin) produces the luminosity in a way that can be approximated as a black body, but the temperature of other layers such as the corona, which is about a million Kelvin, doesn't really affect us. The thing is, I think a increase in solar temperature would tend to cool us down, which might explain the little ice age and Maunder Minimum interaction. The black body model specifies a curve, the peak of which is the most common wavelength light is emitted at a given temperature. If this shifts down, which would happen if the sun heated up, we would get more shorter wavelength light (purple, UV, and above) and less long wavelength light (red, infrared). It's these longer wavelengths that heat us up - UV is largely blocked by the atmosphere, though we're fixing that too. So if you have in fact heard that the sun is getting hotter, that would indicate to my (admittedly imperfect) understanding that we should be getting less heat. Still, it would take a rather significant shift in temperature, as adamk pointed out, for us to care.

Physics people, point out any flaws in my reasoning please. This is almost all from memory and I'm sadly out of practice. Stupid not bringing books to China.

Um, you need to work on your understanding of thermodynamics a bit. Yes, the peak of the radiation curve shifts to shorter wavelengths as temperature goes up, but the area under the curve is not constant. Thus, since the height of the peak goes up, you'll actually get more of the longer wavelengths, too.

That, and the fact that radiation doesn't magically go away when it is "absorbed." It actually gets thermalized - downshifted into many longer wavelength photons via thermodynamic processes - and/or reflected (depending on the wavelength in a way that is non-trivial).

The operative equations to consider are:

Net power output: P = σ * T^4
Intensity: I = P/(4*π*r^2)

If you combine these with some reasonable approximations about how much radiation the earth absorbs versus how much it reflects, you have actually get an approximation for how the mean temperature of the earth varies with the mean temperature of the sun.

Now, where does global warming fit in to this dummy model? Why, the reflection/absorption rates, of course. As the amount of radiation reflected goes down, absorption goes up, and thus the temperature has to go up to shunt off the extra power.

Now, this picture is extremly rough - for starters it averages over the entire earth, so local climates and climate driving systems (like the jet stream, gulf stream, et al) are completely ignored.

BlackGriffen

[Meneldil]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Um, you need to work on your understanding of thermodynamics a bit. Yes, the peak of the radiation curve shifts to shorter wavelengths as temperature goes up, but the area under the curve is not constant. Thus, since the height of the peak goes up, you'll actually get more of the longer wavelengths, too.

That, and the fact that radiation doesn't magically go away when it is "absorbed." It actually gets thermalized - downshifted into many longer wavelength photons via thermodynamic processes - and/or reflected (depending on the wavelength in a way that is non-trivial).

The operative equations to consider are:

Net power output: P = σ * T^4
Intensity: I = P/(4*π*r^2)

If you combine these with some reasonable approximations about how much radiation the earth absorbs versus how much it reflects, you have actually get an approximation for how the mean temperature of the earth varies with the mean temperature of the sun.

Now, where does global warming fit in to this dummy model? Why, the reflection/absorption rates, of course. As the amount of radiation reflected goes down, absorption goes up, and thus the temperature has to go up to shunt off the extra power.

Now, this picture is extremly rough - for starters it averages over the entire earth, so local climates and climate driving systems (like the jet stream, gulf stream, et al) are completely ignored.

BlackGriffen

Thanks, I'd forgotten the peak rises as temperature increases. On the UV and higher, since more than half will return to space due to absorbtion and reemission, I figured (without thinking about the peak rising) that that would be a net loss. It's been awhile, and I left before I took Thermo. (You try buying English language upper level physics textbooks in China. )

[slow moe]

Unless there were SUVs during the Jurassic Period, <<<END

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Meneldil:
The amount of energy the sun puts out varies on an eleven year cycle, but we know about that and I imagine we account for those changes. Where did you hear that the other planets are getting warmer? Aging will cause an overall drop in solar temperature, though we have a while until any dramatic change occurs. From what I learned in Astrophysics, everything we know about the fusion process in a star indicates a remarkably constant energy output over long periods.

Study says sun getting hotter

Study suggersts Mars ice caps eroding

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by slow moe:
Unless there were SUVs during the Jurassic Period, <<<END

Why do you think the Ford Excursion is so big?

What else would a T-Rex scoot around in?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Study says sun getting hotter

Study suggersts Mars ice caps eroding

You read that first article, right? I'll sum up: the sun is warming up, but not enough to account for the effects we're seeing.



BlackGriffen

[maxelson]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Except he was recently vindicated.

VIndicated is a strong word. There's still a whole lotta folk- not even folk connected to the debate- just scientists who say that it is ironic this guy should use such bad science to slam bad science.
He wasn't beaten up for his idea. LOTS of scientists think Global warming as a theory is tenuous at best. He was beaten up for defending his idea of bad science with... bad science.

From the posting: "The Ministry critique holds that the Committee's procedure was unfair. It does not address the scientific issues..." HE might see it as vindication. Having read the book, I gotta say that his methods ranged from laughable to not bad. He persuasive technique was EXCELLENT. But then, lots of folks can be pretty convincing and still have no substance.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Why do you think the Ford Excursion is so big?

What else would a T-Rex scoot around in?

Do you know anything about this debate or is this just the standard party line- because I hear this clever little illustration a lot. Most often by folks against the argument, typically folks who like our current administration and it's environmental policies, and yes, generally folks who know little about it beyond what the party pundits tell them.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Much of that can be attributed to the fact that the sun is getting hotter. All the other planets in our solar system are warming as well.

We had already discussed that the last time we had this conversation. And we answered to that most conclusively. And it was basically the same answer Blackgeffin just gave you. I thought you were going to go back and read some of the suggested material on this? Been months, spacefreak. C'mon, man. Lack of knowledge on a topic is one thing. No big deal, in fact. Total unwillingness to do something about it and repeat misleading information is another.

[saab95]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
XXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JAN 14, 2003 19:39:09 ET XXXXX

GORE TO DECRY 'GLOBAL WARMING' ON NEW YORK CITY'S COLDEST DAY IN DECADE

In what political watchers are calling possibly the biggest gaffe in years, former Vice President Al Gore is set to give a speech tomorrow on the perils of global warming -- on what is expected to be the coldest day in New England in nearly half a century!

MORE

Against the advice of senior advisers, Gore is planning to appear at the historic Beacon Theatre in Manhattan on Thursday to issue an indictment of the Bush administration's "inaction on global warming."

Gore will make the warming case on a day forecasters are predicting the coldest temps in Boston since 1957, with wind chills in parts of New England plunging to 100 degrees below zero!

MORE

Even though forecasters predict Thursday night will bring the coldest temperature reading in New York City in more than 10 years [1 degree above zero], sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT that Gore is determined to deliver the speech -- hoping to make the case how "Global warming" is actually the cause of the record cold snap!

MORE

"The extreme conditions are actually the end result of the planet warming," Gore has told advisers, sources say, in explaining his motivations. "The Bush policies are leading to weather extremes."

Sources would not say whether the speech is to be given outdoors.

Developing...

That's too funny!

Before Gore does that, he'll have to go to the hospital to have his head removed from his ass.

[sideus]

We're on a planet that has a 3 billion year history in which the climate has changed dramatically enough to put dinosaur fossils on Antarctica, evidence of undersea life on top of Mt. Everest, strange enough to feature a 20 megaton blast in Siberia 50 years before atom bombs were invented, and random enough to prevent our ability to accurately forecast tomorrow's weather, AND we conclude based on less than 100 years of weather data that global warming is happening? Forgive me, but I'm feeling a little like a mayfly seeing its first (and only) sunrise and worrying about global sunlighting.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by sideus:
We're on a planet that has a 3 billion year history in which the climate has changed dramatically enough to put dinosaur fossils on Antarctica, evidence of undersea life on top of Mt. Everest, strange enough to feature a 20 megaton blast in Siberia 50 years before atom bombs were invented, and random enough to prevent our ability to accurately forecast tomorrow's weather, AND we conclude based on less than 100 years of weather data that global warming is happening? Forgive me, but I'm feeling a little like a mayfly seeing its first (and only) sunrise and worrying about global sunlighting.

The Global Warming Myth is laughable.

1990's: Global Warming is going to cause the world to fry.

2000's: Global Warming is going to cause us to Freeze to death.

2010's: Global Warming is going to cause normal weather...which would be catastrophic somewhere at some point as I have news... it is going to snow, it is going to be hot, it is going to be cold, it is going to rain.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by sideus:
We're on a planet that has a 3 billion year history in which the climate has changed dramatically enough to put dinosaur fossils on Antarctica, evidence of undersea life on top of Mt. Everest,

Try "contintental drift," slowcoach.

strange enough to feature a 20 megaton blast in Siberia 50 years before atom bombs were invented,

Most credible theory I've seen is a small comet.

and random enough to prevent our ability to accurately forecast tomorrow's weather,

Read my rant above. Climate and weather are not the same thing. That's not a consequence of anything about our planet, but of the inherent complexity of such a massive dynamical system.

AND we conclude based on less than 100 years of weather data that global warming is happening? Forgive me, but I'm feeling a little like a mayfly seeing its first (and only) sunrise and worrying about global sunlighting.

Read the responses I've provided above and think, please. There are mechanisms behind all of these "mysterious" things you cite; mechanisms that are pretty well understood in most cases. It just so happens that when you start dumping a gas into the atmosphere, if you do it to the point where you change the balance of what gases are in the atmosphere, that will effect the thermal properties of the air. The only valid questions are, "How much is too much?" and, "What are the possible consequences of such a change?"

The new ice age theory is actually a response to the second question.

BlackGriffen

[maxelson]

Once again: The scientific jury is still out. There is evidence for and against. DO the research. REAL research. Sorry, kids, but I am going to take the word of a Nobel Prize winning scientist who has made the study of climate and history his life's work over a bunch of politically motivated doofuses. Or the politicians who tell them what to think.

It is quite clear to me that even if it WERE PROVED tomorrow, a lot of you folks would still listen to the politicians saying, "nuh-huh!"
Brilliant.

Seems to me an whole lotta you folk would be disappointed that the unnamed kid in 12 Angry Men was "let off".

[theolein]

What really puzzles me, absolutely, is that the problem of global warming has become a conservative/liberal political issue. Yes, I know, Bush has claimed that it hasn't been proven, but the last time I checked, Bush didn't have any qualifications in the fields of geology or meteorology, but certainly did have vested interests in delaying changes to CO2 output in order to save costs and/or jobs and/or votes in that area. Given that he probably would, in that case, make statements avoiding the need to make changesin CO2 output for political reasons, why does this mean that his followers have to give up the need for independant thought?

Is that a requirement on a form somewhere that you have to sign when buying your Bush/Cheney bumper stickers?